Decisions

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization agreed
to the following:

•approve the work program for Title VI Service Equity Analysis: Scenario
Testing

Meeting
Agenda

1.Introductions

See attendance on page 13.

2.Public Comments

Zach Wassmouth, Para Jayasinghe (Boston Public Works
Department,) and Chuck Gregory (HDR Consultant) presented TIP project #608449 (Commonwealth
Avenue, phases 3 and 4, Packard’s Corner to Kelton Street.) The project spans
approximately one mile of Boston’s Commonwealth Avenue with the goal of increasing
multimodality, improving safety, enhancing transit experiences, and
re-establishing the original vision of Frederick Law Olmsted’s design. The City
met with advocacy groups and held community meetings in 2014 and 2015. The
project design adds dedicated cycle tracks and reclaims parking in carriage
lanes for bikes and green space. The design focuses on bike and pedestrian
safety by truncating carriage lanes, creating dedicated left turn lanes,
optimizing signals, reducing conflict points, widening existing Green Line
platforms and adding accessible platforms, allowing secondary egress walkways, and
providing room for landscape buffers. The current cost estimate is $25 million.

Jay Monty (At-Large City) (City of Everett) and Tom Bent
(Inner Core Committee) (City of Somerville) asked about the re-design of
carriage lanes and the loss of parking. C. Gregory and Z. Wassmouth responded
that public opinion around reducing parking has been positive. Right now there
is an excess of parking as compared to other roadways because of additional
spaces in carriage lanes.

Len Simon (Selectman, Town of Sudbury), was joined by Dan Nason (Public Works Director, Sudbury). L. Simon expressed thanks
for the MPO meeting held in Wellesley on March 2, citing agenda item #9
(Off-Site MPO Meetings). L. Simon spoke in support of project #608164 (Bruce
Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D). The Rail Trail is under construction in Acton
and will soon begin construction in Concord, traveling south from Lowell.
Sudbury has funded 25% of the design. In Sudbury, the Rail Trail will intersect
with the Mass Central Rail Trail. There are plans to extend the Trail into
Framingham and discussions with MetroWest municipalities around obtaining funds
to purchase the CSX corridor are underway. L. Simon expressed the overwhelming
support of the town for the Rail Trail and the hope that it will become part of
a regional, comprehensive recreational and transportation network. The
estimated cost of the project is $6.9 million.

Bill O’Rourke (Town Engineer, Sudbury) spoke in support of
the second project proposed by Sudbury, #607249 (Intersection improvements at
Route 20 and Landham Road). This intersection is not
currently signalized. There have been 170 accidents in the past 10 years, 1 of
them fatal. MassDOT has recently taken over design of the project and the 25%
design is complete. Sudbury has written and submitted an advocacy letter to Secretary
Pollack. The estimated cost of the project is $1.6 million.

Yolanda Greaves (Board of Selectmen, Ashland, and MetroWest
Regional Collaborative) expressed gratitude that TIP Project #604123 (Reconstruction
on Route 126 (Pond St.) in Ashland) has remained programmed in 2020. There was
a 25% public hearing in December and the public is very excited and positive.
The Pond Street Project Working Group continues to push for 75% engineering so
the project can stay in 2020 or earlier. Y. Greaves also spoke as a member of
the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s MetroWest Regional Collaborative
Executive Board, reporting that MWRC met to talk about TIP projects in the
subregion. She expressed support for currently programmed projects in Southborough,
Marlborough, Natick, Ashland, and Framingham. Y. Greaves also reported that
MWRC members are pursuing MAPC’s Landline vision by pursuing multimodal
transportation projects in their individual communities and creating
connections between them.

Kristen Guichard (Assistant Town Planner, Town of Acton) was
joined by Peter Berry (Chair, Acton Board of Selectmen,) and Roland Bartl (Planning Director, Town of Acton). K. Guichard spoke
in support of proposed TIP project #608229 (Intersection Improvements at
Massachusetts Avenue (Route 111) and Main Street (Route 27) (Kelly's Corner)). Regional
through-traffic is a driving cause of congestion in Kelly’s Corner. There are access
management and safety issues for vehicles and pedestrians, no bike lanes, gaps
in the sidewalk network, and issues with ADA compliance. K. Guichard provided
members with an aerial photograph of the project area as well as a concept
plan. Acton hopes to hold the formal 25% design public hearing this coming
winter. The concept plan includes strategic left turn lanes, signalization,
bike lanes and sidewalks in compliance with complete streets guidelines.

P. Berry spoke about the importance of the project to Acton
and asked that the MPO consider giving these improvements priority on the TIP.
P. Berry stressed that the area has deteriorated, is hazardous under the
current conditions, and highlighted town investment in public transit, the Bruce
Freeman and Assabet River Rail Trails, and a comprehensive Complete Streets
policy. He added that expected development by Stop and Shop and town work to
encourage mixed use development highlights the safety, health, community, and
economic importance of Kelly’s Corner.

Christine Stickney (South Shore Coalition) (Town of
Braintree) referred to a question asked at the March 2 meeting about 40B
development. Eric Bourassa (Metropolitan Area Planning Council) responded that
under the current metric, economic vitality points are not given for 40Bs
because they are not considered specific targeted economic development. E.
Bourassa added that the criteria will be reconsidered as part of the next Long
Range Transportation Plan development process. He added that typically 40B
happens when a municipality does not already have the minimum affordable
housing required, and there is a question of rewarding communities for
facilitating the development they are required to facilitate.

Jim Fitzgerald (City of Boston) (Boston Planning &
Development Agency) asked how far the Kelly’s Corner project extends down Route
27 and whether it reaches the train station. K. Guichard responded that the
train station is about a mile from Kelly’s Corner. P. Berry added that a study
of an intersection closer to the train station is being funded in the town
budget for 2017.

Kevin Hunter (Malden Redevelopment Authority) spoke on
behalf of project #608275 (Lighting and Sidewalk Improvements on Exchange
Street). K. Hunter noted that the MassDOT project name is a misnomer, and the
plan has evolved into a Complete Streets project. Exchange Street is an
important corridor connecting Malden Center MBTA station to downtown Malden.
Malden’s downtown has been continually developing, with 600 mixed-use units
under construction. The project would increase bicycle and pedestrian safety, bring
sidewalks and ramps into ADA compliance, remove angled parking, and add new
landscaping improvements. The project hopes to improve connection to the
Northern Strand Community Trail and serves several targeted development sites.
The estimated cost is approximately $1 million. Malden is waiting to hear from the
Mass Gaming Commission regarding a grant for design funds. The remaining
funding gap would be filled by the city of Malden.

Marie Rose (MassDOT Highway Division) asked what a more
appropriate project name would be, offering to change it in MassDOT’s
project database. K. Hunter replied that Exchange Street Complete Streets
Reconstruction would be better.

Rebecca Curran (Town of Marblehead) advocated for project
#608146 (Intersection improvements to Pleasant St. at Village/Vine/Cross). The
town funded 25% design for the project, which has been submitted. This
intersection is one of the two main accesses into Marblehead, located at the
beginning of the business district. There are two schools within 1000 feet of
the intersection, which is un-signalized and very congested.

Alexander Train (City of Chelsea) advocated for project
#608078 (Reconstruction of Broadway, from City Hall to the Revere City Line).
This corridor is the major thoroughfare connecting downtown Chelsea to Route
16. Existing pavement conditions are poor, with outdated signals and no
multimodal amenities. The city plans to submit their 25% design report to MassDOT
soon, and has held several community meetings. The project is a priority for
Chelsea for safety, environmental health, and equity reasons. The corridor has
many non-ADA compliant sidewalks, poorly placed crossings, and problems with congestion
and air quality. The current cost estimate is $20 million, and Chelsea is
prepared to substantially augment any TIP funding they might receive.

3.Chair’s Report—David Mohler, MassDOT

There was none.

4.Committee Chairs’ Reports— Bryan
Pounds, MassDOT

B. Pounds reported that the Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP) Committee would meet immediately following the MPO meeting. The
committee planned to discuss the rankings of projects under consideration for
funding.

T. Bennett shared that the Advisory Council met on March 8
and discussed UPWP study ideas. The Advisory Council also approved a comment
letter regarding the proposed Public Participation Plan amendment. While the
Council understands the desire to align document production schedules, they
have serious concerns about whether this amendment is the correct way to do so.

K. Quackenbush reminded board members to provide feedback on
the Performance Dashboard presented by MPO staff on February 16. He noted that
a 3 month calendar of MPO meetings was available, as well as two changes to the
agenda: meeting minutes from March 2 were not available for approval in item #7,
and Nick Hart would be replaced by Annette Demchur and Steven Andrews to
present item #8.

7.Approval of Meeting Minutes—Róisín Foley, MPO Staff

The minutes of the meeting of March 2 were not presented for
approval.

8.Action
Item: Work Program for Title VI Service
Equity Analysis: Scenario Testing—Annette Demchur and Steven
Andrews, MPO Staff

A. Demchur presented the work program for Title VI Service Equity Analysis: Scenario
Testing (posted to the MPO meeting calendar,) reminding the board that N.
Hart previously presented to them a prototype methodology he developed for
conducting the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) required service equity
analysis. MPO staff developed this methodology out of a concern that the
guidelines outlined in the Title VI circular did not provide for an adequate
measurement of the possible adverse effects of different service changes. FTA
offers two approaches for conducting service equity analyses; one using ridership
data and one using population data. MPO staff found weaknesses in both methods.
FTA methods do not consider the magnitude of changes or adverse effects. The methodology
developed by MPO staff looks at changes in access to destinations, taking into
consideration people who use or could use services, the availability of transit
alternatives, and the trip travel times. This allows staff to account for all potential
riders impacted by a change in service, not just the specific populations
living near the affected route but also people who might use the route as part
of their trip, as well as the availability of alternative services. The
methodology was presented to the MBTA and MassDOT, who have requested more
scenario testing. This work program would look at all MBTA key bus routes to test
different scenarios. The prototype methodology includes the rapid transit
system and the key bus routes. Staff has proposed work to fully develop this
methodology for the entire MBTA system in the next UPWP.

Discussion

D. Mohler asked if staff feel that the goal should be to
encourage FTA to adopt this methodology instead of the one they recommend. A.
Demchur agreed and added that staff have submitted a
service equity analysis using a method somewhere between the FTA guidelines and
the MPO’s method, and this analysis had been approved by FTA.

Vote

A motion to approve the work program for Title VI Service Equity Analysis: Scenario
Testing was made by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (E. Bourassa),
and seconded by the City of Boston (Boston Transportation Department) (Jim
Gillooly). The motion carried.

9.Off-Site MPO Meetings—David Mohler, MassDOT

D. Mohler opened a discussion off-site MPO Meetings by
reminding members that prior to the March 2 meeting in Wellesley, staff
encountered difficulty finding a suitable venue. Staff is willing to continue
planning off-site meetings but want to make sure members feel they are
valuable.

Discussion

K. Quackenbush stated that staff was unable to schedule
off-site meetings during 2016 due to the need to hold Green Line Extension (GLX)
discussions at the State Transportation building.

Dennis Giombetti (MetroWest Regional Collaborative) (Town of
Framingham) stated that he felt off-site meetings were beneficial, but that the
onus for finding a venue should be on subregional representatives and not
staff.

Laura Wiener (At-Large Town) (Town of Arlington) noted that
when coming to regular MPO meetings, she uses the MBTA, but when attending off-site
meetings she drives, adding that this may send the wrong message.

Tina Cassidy (North Suburban Planning Council) (City of
Woburn) added that four may not be the right number of off-site meetings; perhaps
two to three is sufficient.

Laura Gilmore (Massachusetts Port Authority) stated that as
much advanced notice of an off-site meeting as possible is appreciated, due to
the need to rearrange schedules.

K. Quackenbush added that the general pattern of off-site
meetings has been to hold them in March, June, September, and December.

D. Mohler asked how staff chooses locations and whether all
subregions have been visited. K. Quackenbush replied that the process is a combination
of trying to visit areas the MPO has not yet visited, constrained by the need
for reasonable transit access and accessible meeting spaces. Since the MPO
began holding off-site meetings, there have been 15. There has been at least
one in each subregion.

J. Gillooly asked if there are opportunities to use
technology to circumvent some of the issues around off-site meetings, by
perhaps using Skype or other remote telecommunications services.

Dennis Crowley (South West Advisory Planning Committee)
(Town of Medway) noted that the requirement that a venue being accessible by
public transportation may exclude some communities and asked whether this
requirement was necessary.

D. Mohler responded that the main requirement is that a
venue be accessible by ADA standards. Transit accessibility has been the MPO’s
practice.

C. Stickney commented that it might be valuable to hold an
off-site meeting in a community that is not accessible by public transit, so
that members may experience what those conditions are like in some communities.

Paul Regan (MBTA Advisory Council) noted that some venues
may not be accessible by the MBTA, but may be served by a local RTA.

T. Bennett stated that she felt it was important to provide
members and members of the public without access to a vehicle the opportunity
to attend meetings without extreme expense.

J. Gillooly added that this may point to the need to hold
off-site meetings, so members of the public who may not be able to come to
Boston have an opportunity to attend.

D. Mohler summarized that the feeling seemed to be to
continue off-site meetings. He asked that K. Quackenbush and staff start
thinking about which subregion the June meeting should be held in and reach out
to representatives.

Steve Olanoff (TRIC Alternate) added that he is working on
securing a venue in Westwood for a meeting in September/October.

K. Quackenbush asked whether members were comfortable with
revisiting venues. The response to this was generally positive.

L. Dantas presented a review of public comments on the
proposed amendment to the MPO’s Public Participation Plan. The Amendment was
presented to the MPO at the January 19 meeting, where the board voted to
release it for a 45-day public comment period. The end of the comment period
was scheduled for March 20. Staff compiled the input they received prior to
March 16 for review and discussion by the MPO prior to a vote on March 30.

The proposal to amend the MPO’s Public Participation Plan
was made by MassDOT and stemmed from the desire to align TIP and STIP
development with that of the CIP. The proposal impacts the comment period
duration for the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP,) and UPWP, i.e. the three main MPO certification
documents. The basic premise of the amendment is to shorten the public comment
period for all three documents to 21 days.

The Boston Region MPO’s Public Participation Plan specifically
includes a vision for public participation, which is to “hear, value, and
consider the views of and feedback from the full spectrum of the public.” Under
that vision, staff set out to gather responses and ascertain whether 21 days offers
a reasonable opportunity for comment by the full spectrum of the public.

Notices were sent via email lists, Twitter, and updates to
the MPO’s website. Staff designed a three-question survey to get a reaction
from a broad spectrum of the public. 133 responses to the survey were received,
from stakeholders including municipal officials, town and local planning staff,
consultants and transportation professionals, business owners, residents, and
advocacy groups. The survey asked whether there were any challenges posed by
reducing comment period length. A little over a third of respondents felt this
posed no challenge. 39 respondents felt there would be some difficulty. Around
a third of respondents felt they could not comment in 21 days, and some said even
30 days was not enough. The survey did not find that there was a significant
difference in opinion about whether the lengths of comment periods should be
different for the three different certification documents. In terms of
identifying potential challenges, in the survey a third of respondents
indicated that formal comments must be reviewed by others in their
organization. 24 said that their council/board needs to meet in person to
decide on how to comment. Some respondents indicated they did not have ready
access to a computer, and others indicated that disability status and English
proficiency were a challenge. In addition to the survey, formal written
comments were received from approximately 15 different commenters, including
letters from the Advisory Council and the Conservation Law Foundation.

Discussion

Tom O’Rourke (Three Rivers Interlocal Council) (Town of
Norwood/NVCC) asked for a review of the reasoning behind the amendment. D.
Mohler replied that MassDOT’s desired the change so
that, for MPOs that meet monthly, amendments could be voted out for public
review one month and then taken to a final vote at the next month’s meeting,
and include time for staff review and compilation of comments. This would
require a less than 30-day comment period. This does not apply to Boston, where
the board generally meets every two weeks.

T. Bennett expressed that Advisory Council members
understood the reasoning, but had many questions around whether this was the
only way to accomplish a better alignment of development schedules. She asked
whether it was possible to institute a temporary acceleration of the schedule
for this year only. This would also allow for a review of how reducing the
period impacts the ability of the public to comment before changing the
practice in the long-term. She also asked whether it was necessary to do this
for all three documents, particularly the LRTP.

D. Giombetti asked whether it would be possible to use the
waiver process to change the comment period length, rather than an amendment.
D. Mohler replied that the board can use waivers.

A. Kleyman
presented the FFYs 2018-22 TIP Final
Evaluation Results and First Tier
List of Projects.These are the final
evaluation scores and ranked list of projects under consideration for funding
with MPO target funds in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP.

Materials: Posted to MPO Meeting Calendar

1.Table 1:
FFY 2018-22 Revised Project Evaluation Scores- These scores are grouped by
MPO investment program. New projects appear in blue text; projects in the LRTP
are in bold black; red text notes a change to a project’s score from the draft evaluations
presented on March 2.

2.Table 2:
FFY 2018-22 TIP First Tier List- This list includes factors that go into
developing the Staff Recommendation. Styles are the same as Table 1.

Table 1 includes 7
projects with scores that have changed since March 2. These changes generally
stemmed from feedback from TIP Contacts. In the Complete Streets category, #608275
(Malden) increased to 54 points and moved (ranked) in front of #602310
(Danvers). In the Intersection Improvements category, #608146 (Marblehead) increased
to 40 points and moved (ranked) in front of #604231 (Marlborough) and #607249
(Sudbury).

Table 2 includes
factors that members asked questions about on March 2 and which staff consider
when formulating a recommendation. These include the year of PRC approval and
MAPC Subregions and Community Types.

The handout FFYs 2018‐22 TIP Target Funds (Boston
Region MPO Discretionary Funds) and Comparison to FFYs 2017‐2021 Targets shows the
funding targets for 2018-22 and compares these amounts to last year. There is
an across the board increase in each year, ranging between 2.6 and 6.7%.

The handout FFYs 17‐21 TIP: Project Status
(Section 1A, MPO Target Funds), as of March 6, 2017 summarizes cost and
readiness changes to projects currently programmed in the FFYs 2017-21 TIP. In
2017, #607309 (Hingham) and #604810 (Marlborough) have increased in cost. In
2018, #606635 (Newton and Needham) and #605110 (Brookline) have increased. MassDOT
recommends moving Newton and Needham and Brookline to 2019. #604989
(Southborough) may be ready for advertising in 2018. In 2019, #608352 (Salem) could
advance to 2018. Two projects in 2019 are noted as having some risk of being
ready to advertise in that year. #607652 (Everett) has increased in cost. In
2020, there is some uncertainty about the ability to keep #606226 (Boston) programmed.
In 2021, #608347 (Beverley) and #606501(Holbrook) may be able to advance to
2020. The impact of these changes is an approximately $2 million deficit in
2017, the availability of approximately $20 million in 2018, and a large
deficit in 2019.

Discussion

J. Gillooly
asked about project #608449 (Boston) and whether scores are still able to
change prior to the March 30 meeting. A. Kleyman replied that this is possible.
J. Gillooly commented that the addition of projects to the LRTP is generally
fairly perfunctory unless there is a major change to the network. He asked
whether #608449 (Boston) would need any extensive modeling or air quality
analyses in order to be added to the LRTP. Anne McGahan (MPO Staff) replied
that this project would not have to be modeled.

Richard
Canale (At-Large Town) (Town of Lexington) asked whether project #608006
specifically, and other projects generally, could only happen with MPO funding,
or whether MassDOT can fund some of them in another capacity.

D. Mohler
replied that MassDOT will be releasing the list of statewide projects it plans
to fund soon, and that it is possible some of the projects currently being
proposed for MPO funding will be funded with statewide dollars.

E. Bourassa
asked whether A. Kleyman had specific information related to the cost increases
indicated in FFYs 2017‐21 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP): Project Status (Section 1A, MPO Target Funds), as of
March 6, 2017. A Kleyman replied that she had heard from the MassDOT
Project Manager of #606635 (Newton and Needham) that the original estimate of
$15 million was generated when the scope was smaller. Construction costs,
drainage reconstruction, utility work, and changes to the bridge design also contributed
to the cost increase. E. Bourassa asked whether any of the increases are
attributable to local advocacy for bike accommodations. David Koses (At-Large
City) (City of Newton) replied that he had only recently heard about this issue
but welcomed more information. M. Rose explained that there have been internal
discussions related to a new cross-section of Needham Street regarding a separated
bike lane. The recommendation for moving #606635 from 2018 to 2019 is not
directly related to this discussion.

J. Gillooly
provided feedback related to two Boston projects, #605789 (Melnea
Cass) and #606226 (Rutherford Avenue). Melnea Cass will
be ready to advertise in 2019, 25% design will be submitted in June of 2017.
#606226 is also tracking well to be ready for advertising in 2020. J. Gillooly
stressed the importance of this project to the City of Boston, indicating that
the City will be ready with a definitive announcement of the design concept in
April or May. The plan is to submit 25% design in spring of 2018.

D. Giombetti
asked if it is possible to identify projects in 2019 and 2020 that could be
moved forward to fill gaps in funding. D. Mohler replied that advancing
projects currently in the TIP is the first place that staff looks to fill gaps
in funding. Design, environmental, and right-of-way factors must all be
considered for advancing a project.

T. Bent expressed
the support of Somerville for the Rutherford Avenue project and stressed the
coordination between Boston, Somerville, and Everett in the effort of keeping
the project on track. J. Monty seconded this and stressed the project’s
importance to Everett as well.

D. Crowley
referred back to Table 2,
highlighting that the scoring on equity favors cities and is detrimental to
smaller suburban communities.

K.
Quackenbush commented that the scoring metrics are a reflection of the values
of the MPO at the time of the scoring reevaluation last year. He stressed that
the reason there are other decision factors such as those related to geographic
considerations is so that staff and members can factor those into the decision-making.

12.Members Items

There were none.

13.Adjourn

A motion to adjourn was made by Metropolitan Area Planning
Council (E. Bourassa) and seconded by the City of Boston (J. Gillooly). The
motion carried.